You can still decrease the number of connections you handle in tcpserver 
(or alike). This will give you a cap on max loadlevel...

Regards
Bgs


Michael Colvin wrote:
> I don't believe so, but I will check.  Like I said, the only time I have any
> issues is after some sort of an issue (Bandwidth down, power outage (Don't
> ask!), etc.  Then, when the server comes back up, all the mail that's been
> waiting bombards the server, overloading it, or, just simply from massive
> spam attacks...  Other than that, there is no issue.  
>
> I think part of the problem is that apparently SpamAssassin takes longer
> running in the "Non-fast SpamAssassin" mode, which is the only way it can
> run when using SQL based user prefs, which I am/have to.  That causes my
> typical message scan time to be ~2 - 3 seconds each, much longer than I
> think it should be, and then, add an over abundance of messages, and the
> load on the server goes WAY to high, and everything comes to a crawl.  It's
> really an ugly sight.  :-O
>  
>
> Michael J. Colvin
> NorCal Internet Services
> www.norcalisp.com
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Shubert
>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:39 AM
>> To: spamdyke users
>> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Timeout problem
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Do you have spamassassin's bayes_auto_expire turned on? This 
>> can take long enough that the sending server times out when 
>> autoexpire kicks in. To get around this, I turn off 
>> autoexpire and run a daily cron job to handle that.
>>
>> Michael Colvin wrote:
>>     
>>> I wasn't trying to say SpamDyke was responsible for the 
>>>       
>> issue I saw, 
>>     
>>> nor that it would solve anyone's issue...  Mearly that by 
>>>       
>> creating the 
>>     
>>> timeoutsmtpd file that Paulo had mentioned, which seems to not be 
>>> present in the "Stock" Qmailrocks install, and possibly 
>>>       
>> others, seems 
>>     
>>> like it would trivialize the timeout function of SpamDyke, and may 
>>> possibly, in addition, rectify any issues that are being seen by 
>>> people who have issues with SpamDyke timeing out 
>>>       
>> connections causing duplicates...
>>     
>>> I know what was causing/is causing *MY* duplicate issues.  When my 
>>> server becomes so busy handling Spam that the amount of mail being 
>>> handled by Qmail becomes very large (Usually because it's 
>>>       
>> not getting 
>>     
>>> caught by SpamDyke's RBL's and has already been greylisted, 
>>> SpamAssassin takes so long to process, that the timeout event in 
>>> SpamDyke is triggered.  Of course, lengthening that value 
>>>       
>> only makes 
>>     
>>> things worse, since it allows more SMTP sessions to just 
>>>       
>> sit there.... 
>>     
>>> So, not only does this cause duplicates, but then 
>>>       
>> SpamAssassin stops 
>>     
>>> it's scanning (Because it timed out), and allows even more mail 
>>> through...  Not to mention the fact that the duplicates 
>>>       
>> that are being 
>>     
>>> sent just compound the problem. :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, you can tell this is happening when the SpamAssassin 
>>>       
>> scores show ?/?
>>     
>>> instead of the usual numberic values...  So, for me, a quick search 
>>> for that header information, and "Timeout" in the logs, 
>>>       
>> lets me know 
>>     
>>> things are going to start being duplicated.
>>>
>>> My guess is, this is partially related to the issue that Sam has 
>>> indicated would be fixed in the next version (Which I 
>>>       
>> figured, based 
>>     
>>> on the previous thread I'd posted), and that may resolve at 
>>>       
>> least the 
>>     
>>> duplicate e-mail portion of my issue.  Of course, the best way to 
>>> resolve it would be more servers to handle the load.  :-)  
>>>       
>> I'm working on that.
>>     
>>> I know that, without SpamDyke, my existing server wouldn't 
>>>       
>> be handling 
>>     
>>> the load it does now.
>>>  
>>>
>>> Michael J. Colvin
>>> NorCal Internet Services
>>> www.norcalisp.com
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam 
>>>> Clippinger
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:59 AM
>>>> To: spamdyke users
>>>> Subject: Re: [spamdyke-users] Timeout problem
>>>>
>>>> The issue where timed-out messages are delivered anyway 
>>>>         
>> will be fixed 
>>     
>>>> in version 4.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how ClamAV could be causing Eric's timeouts but again, 
>>>> since I don't (yet) understand what's happening, it's 
>>>>         
>> worth a shot.  
>>     
>>>> Keeping ClamAV up to date is always a good idea, whether 
>>>>         
>> any problems 
>>     
>>>> are occurring or not.  Generally speaking, a 
>>>>         
>> slow/unresponsive qmail 
>>     
>>>> (or other child process) can cause an idle timeout in 
>>>>         
>> spamdyke 3.1.7 
>>     
>>>> -- I've fixed this in the next version.
>>>>
>>>> -- Sam Clippinger
>>>>
>>>> Bruce Schreiber wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had the exact same symptom with multiple users.  The
>>>>>           
>>>> problem turned
>>>>         
>>>>> out to be in ClamAV.  There is a DOS exploit in ClamAV that
>>>>>           
>>>> is solved
>>>>         
>>>>> with an upgrade to 0.91 or later.  (see
>>>>> http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/35367)   Upgrading ClamAV 
>>>>>           
>>>> solved the
>>>>         
>>>>> problem for the most part.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the symptom is disturbing.  If the mail client
>>>>>           
>>>> is being
>>>>         
>>>>> sent a message indicating that the message failed, then it
>>>>>           
>>>> should not
>>>>         
>>>>> be sent by Qmail.  I believe this is a Spamdyke bug.  Spamdyke is 
>>>>> terminating the client session, but is failing to stop Qmail from 
>>>>> sending the email.  Outlook exacerbates this problem by
>>>>>           
>>>> automatically
>>>>         
>>>>> retrying the failed message, without notifying the user.  
>>>>>           
>> I had one 
>>     
>>>>> customer complain that a message was sent 170 times.
>>>>>           
>>>> Customers eyes
>>>>         
>>>>> glaze over when you try to explain why it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Colvin wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Doing this, kind of negates the need for doing it in
>>>>>>             
>>>> SpamDyke, except
>>>>         
>>>>>> for maybe a "Backup" in case Qmail doesn't for some reason.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I think the problem is, some people don't have a
>>>>>>             
>>>> timeoutsmtpd file.  
>>>>         
>>>>>> I had  a "Stock" Qmailrocks install that did not have it, and 
>>>>>> apparently, the "Default" value used by Qmail if that file
>>>>>>             
>>>> is missing
>>>>         
>>>>>> is 1200 seconds (20 minutes), which of course is kind of
>>>>>>             
>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>         
>>>>>> So, with even a modest value in SpamDyke of 300 seconds, 
>>>>>>             
>> SpamDyke 
>>     
>>>>>> would occassionally timeout a connection, and in some
>>>>>>             
>>>> cases, I think
>>>>         
>>>>>> because of the way SpamDyke disconnected the session, 
>>>>>>             
>> the sending 
>>     
>>>>>> server didn't realize the message had been sent.  I belive it is 
>>>>>> discusses in this thread:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00746.html
>>     
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Michael J. Colvin**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **NorCal Internet Services**
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **//www.norcalisp.com// <http://www.norcalisp.com/>**
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.norcalisp.com/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>             
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----------
>>>>         
>>>>>>     *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>     [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
>>>>>>             
>>>> Behalf Of *Paulo
>>>>         
>>>>>>     Henrique
>>>>>>     *Sent:* Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:18 PM
>>>>>>     *To:* spamdyke users
>>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [spamdyke-users] Timeout problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I had a problem like this and decided putting the 
>>>>>>             
>> timeout from
>>     
>>>>>>     qmail less than the timeout from spamdyke, see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     cat /var/qmail/control/timeoutsmtpd
>>>>>>     240
>>>>>>     grep idle-timeout-secs
>>>>>>             
>>>> /var/qmail/control/spamdyke/spamdyke.conf
>>>>         
>>>>>>     idle-timeout-secs = 300
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     After that never had problem with the repetition of messages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     2008/4/22 Eric Shubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>             
>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
>>>>         
>>>>>>         I had a problem receiving a particular email message. It
>>>>>>         would always send
>>>>>>         the same amount of data, then timeout. The same amount of
>>>>>>         data was
>>>>>>         sent/received with timeouts of 60 and 180 seconds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         I logged the message (great little feature of
>>>>>>             
>>>> spamdyke btw),
>>>>         
>>>>>>         and the end
>>>>>>         part of the message log always shows:
>>>>>>         <HR align="left" SIZE=1 color=black>
>>>>>>         <div align="left"><font face="arial"
>>>>>>         size="1">14072172</font></div></td></tr></TBODY></TABLE>
>>>>>>         </BODY></HTML>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         FF> 04/22/2008 17:11:13
>>>>>>         .
>>>>>>         QUIT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         <FF  04/22/2008 17:11:13
>>>>>>         421 Timeout. Talk faster next time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         <XX  04/22/2008 17:11:33
>>>>>>         250 ok 1208909493 qp 11949
>>>>>>         221 doris.shubes.net <http://doris.shubes.net> - 
>>>>>>             
>> Welcome to
>>     
>>>>>>         Qmail Toaster Ver. 1.3 SMTP Server
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         04/22/2008 17:11:33 CLOSED
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Here's the smtp log for the successful receipt (with no
>>>>>>         spamdyke):
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: pid 12162 from 208.46.47.130
>>>>>>         <http://208.46.47.130>
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:13 tcpserver: ok 12162 doris:192.168.71.11:25
>>>>>>         <http://192.168.71.11:25> :208.46.47.130::51303
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted sender: from
>>>>>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote
>>>>>>         <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130
>>>>>>         <http://208.46.47.130>> rcpt <> : sender accepted
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:13 CHKUSER accepted rcpt: from
>>>>>>         <[EMAIL PROTECTED]::> remote
>>>>>>         <rapport.mysurvey.com:unknown:208.46.47.130
>>>>>>         <http://208.46.47.130>> rcpt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>         <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> :
>>>>>>         found existing recipient
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:34 simscan:[12162]:CLEAN
>>>>>>         (-6.20/99.00):20.2626s:April Edition of
>>>>>>         MySurvey.com Opinion
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>> Matters:208.46.47.130:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:ac
>>>>         
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>       
>>>>>>         <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>>         04-22 17:21:34 tcpserver: end 12162 status 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         After receiving the entire message, I see this 
>>>>>>             
>> portion that
>>     
>>>>>>         was received
>>>>>>         after the part logged by spamdyke:
>>>>>>         <IMG
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>> SRC="https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indi
>>>>         
>>> d=14072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55>
>>> &z=67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD
>>>       
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>> <https://www.mysurvey.com/gems/gems_open_tracking.cfm?indid=14
>>>>         
>>> 072172&cmpid=1105&r=1720290&rundate=22-APR-2008+11%3a52%3a55&z=>
>>> 67129618CF0844A786F0E0A6C20C49CD>"border="0"
>>>       
>>>>>>         width="1" height="1">
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>> ------=_Layout_Part_DC7E1BB5_1105_4DB3_BAE3_2A6208EB099A--
>>     
>>>>>>         Any idea why this would timeout (consistently, like
>>>>>>         clockwork) with
>>>>>>         spamdyke, but not without it? This message timed
>>>>>>             
>>>> out all day
>>>>         
>>>>>>         long with
>>>>>>         spamdyke, but was received successfully on the
>>>>>>             
>>>> first attempt
>>>>         
>>>>>>         without
>>>>>>         spamdyke. Did spamdyke somehow choke on the last bit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         FWIW, it appears that the entire email was a bit 
>>>>>>             
>> hosed, as
>>     
>>>>>>         the html did not
>>>>>>         render properly in the client view (mac mail) once
>>>>>>             
>>>> the entire
>>>>         
>>>>>>         message was
>>>>>>         received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>         -Eric 'shubes'
>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>         spamdyke-users mailing list
>>>>>>         [email protected]
>>>>>>             
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>         
>>>>>>         http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>     Paulo Henrique Fonseca
>>>>>>     [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>             
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>> .mdEmail and .mdSecureIM allow tramsmission of PHI in
>>>>>           
>>>> compliance with HIPAA.
>>>>         
>>>>> Each is included when you register a .md Domain Name.
>>>>> http://www.max.md/register.php?affid=footer1
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>> -
>>>>         
>>>>> --
>>>>>           
>> --
>> -Eric 'shubes'
>> _______________________________________________
>> spamdyke-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> spamdyke-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
spamdyke-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users

Reply via email to